Obstacles in the Way

Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
3
Hey, I would like to hear your opinions on energy "generation".
In the long run, it is clear that society has to transit to renewable energy ... per definition. There is just no way to run things on fossil for another million years. There is (probably) a way to harvest energy from the sun (may it be in form of water running down a river, air moving around or sun rays directly) for that time period. Generally, the sooner we make the transition the better (or the more efficient) but the road to 100% renewables is long and hopping over within a year or 5 is not gonna happen. So I have two questions:

What would be pros and cons of building a power plant in central Europe per plant-type that come to mind. (solar, wind, hydro) Do you know any projects that interested people should look into? What would be alternative options?

In order to stop fossil fuels as quickly as possible (within the next 10 years or so) what cool information and opinions do you have on nuclear? (already did some research but I am glad for every detail)

cheers
 
THIS is currently being built in France. Great cost. Perhaps a point of discussion.

ITER.jpg
800px-ITER_Exhibit_(01810402)_(12219071813)_(cropped).jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
 
Any Nuclear ssystem will have its idealogical opponents, but currently it is the obvious technical solution for clean energy.
But current designs are expensive due to the heavy regulatory requirements etc.
The way forward would seem to be Modular Nuclear Reactors .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
Especially if Thorium technology is developed to provide some answers to the safety issues of Nuclear.
Fusion is a ideal answer, but is still only a dream in any practical sense.
 
Hillhater said:
Any Nuclear ssystem will have its idealogical opponents, but currently it is the obvious technical solution for clean energy.

I thought your biggest hangup about renewables was cost. Nuclear is the least cost effective prevalent electric power solution by miles, even if you discount the cost of radioactive waste management (which is the real reason it isn't economical). So why do you prefer it? Because it's dirty and has horrifying externalities? Because it produces nuclear weapons as a byproduct?

Or because reactionary chuds think it's cool?

I think I know the answers to my questions.
 
Chalo said:
Hillhater said:
Any Nuclear ssystem will have its idealogical opponents, but currently it is the obvious technical solution for clean energy.

I thought your biggest hangup about renewables was cost.
Once again you have confused me with someone in your imagination ! :roll:
My “biggest hangup” about renewables is simply that they do not provide reliable, continuous, utility power…..at any cost !
Their high “cost” is an inevitable byproduct or their failure to perform.
….Nuclear is the least cost effective prevalent electric power solution by miles,…..
Is it ? :shock:
..maybe you should check some more informed sources.. :wink:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator.
 
Geothermal power is something I believe will be one of the better renewable options once it can scale up. Think of it like a nuclear / gas / coal plant without the ugly issues belonging to that heat source. Uses heat in the earth to make steam / make power day and night. It can use abandoned oil wells if the heat is there.

Energy storage helps bridge the gap in power production when the sun isn't shining / wind isn't blowing. Batteries are the first thought to accomplish this but flow batteries, pumped hydro, gravity storage are all good options.

Storage and portability (store and pour) are often thought of as givens but have challenges. There's a cost / loss associated to both.

People get target fixated on a single, simple solution but there are different pieces of the puzzle that all need good solutions.
 
Geothermal is a ideal solution,..but unfortunately restricted to a few viable geological areas in the world.
Currently, for most countries, useful thermal heat is too far below the surface to be accessed using existing technology.
There is some hope that new deep drilling (20+ km) methods will open up more areas.
https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2022/02/28-geothermal-energy-future-technology.htm
 
DogDipstick said:
THIS is currently being built in France. Great cost. Perhaps a point of discussion.

ITER...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

ITER isn't what people originally thought it would be,
https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/11/03/iter-organization-concedes-reactor-is-not-designed-for-net-power-production/
I appreciate research and moving old ideas forward, I'd love a Mr fusion in my car and house. Sadly I'm not sure ITER will end up as successful or useful as intended. I'd rather see that $ split up over a bunch of smaller open source / collaborative research projects.
 
Chalo said:
Hillhater said:
Any Nuclear ssystem will have its idealogical opponents, but currently it is the obvious technical solution for clean energy.

I thought your biggest hangup about renewables was cost. Nuclear is the least cost effective prevalent electric power solution by miles, even if you discount the cost of radioactive waste management (which is the real reason it isn't economical). So why do you prefer it? Because it's dirty and has horrifying externalities? Because it produces nuclear weapons as a byproduct?

Or because reactionary chuds think it's cool?

I think I know the answers to my questions.

Of course I can't answer for Hillhater but you actually have a great point there with the costs. As far as externalities go it's a bit more complicated especially with Thorium-Reactors. This is gonna be a long one so forgive me.
It is true that renewables are expensive but calculating in the externalities and positive long term effects they make much more sense than getting energy from else where. BUT you have the problem of energy storage. In order to use renewables all the time you either cut back on your energy usage or you have useful energy storage. What probably will happen instead is that you need some other form of energy until then. So then we need a metric based upon which we can figure out the best energy source in addition to renewables. When we take human casualties as metric then we'll quickly see that fossil fuels are insane. The pollution in the air effects all people around the world (more or less) equally regardless from where the energy is used and fossil-electricity costs a lot of lives per MWh produced.

Nuclear has two crucial disadvantages... 1: you see it's negative effects directly. If a nuclear power plant blows up, people closer to the reactor get harmed a lot more than people being further away. The second disadvantage is that the technology is a mystery to a lot of people. Let me elaborate on why these are disadvantages: It is very hard for us humans to grasp a danger like fossil fuels because we can't sense it and therefore need a level of abstract-thinking that doesn't come natural to us. Therefore we tend to underestimate the negative externalities (especially in terms of directly caused death). When you look at numbers of casualties you will see that renewables are actually worse than nuclear (per kWh produced). This is due to a big dam bursting in China, but no-one fears renewables bc no one makes the assumption that this would happen where we - ourselves - live. Which is reasonable but just as much as it is unreasonable to fear nuclear more than fossil fuels. But even then (with all these fears being of course real and true) nuclear, harms far less people that fossil fuels (including natural gas btw ... because of leakages) The idea behind nuclear is that nuclear and renewables join forces and together get rid of fossil fuels a quick as possible. Fossil fuels combined kill around 75 people per mWh, natural gas around 2.5 and nuclear 0,03. And this is not an estimation by some nuclear lobby thingy, but by universities with independent funding.

Concerning weapons: yes, uranium reactors were given the edge over other alternatives in the field bc of weapon production but this is not the case with newer, more efficient reactors anymore, at least not to the extent where it would make sense for governments use it like that

Growing up I was also told that nuclear is automatically bad and unethical due to waste and war. But by learning more and more about it and learning more and more about the alternatives ... maybe it's time to rethink nuclear. Thanks for reading and thanks for the suggestions so far, I will look into them:)
 
….Of course I can't answer for Hillhater but you actually have a great point there with the costs….
I answered Chalo’s mistaken belief with the link to the iea table of actual costs….did you check it ?
The iea report Nuclear is actually one of the lowest cost generation technologies. !
Also , Thorium reactors were proven over 70 years ago, but were not promoted BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PRODUCE WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM . !
…nuclear bombs were considered to be a high priority at the time !
If Nuclear of any form, especially small modular units, are proven viable and cost effective, then there is no justification for wind or solar in utility gereration .But, Solar will always have a niche for off grid applications and limited demand remote communities.
 
Costs are not just monetary. Safety, environmental impact, accidents, hackers, waste storage, etc. all should be considered.

To look at things objectively you need to try to remove fear. The things that trigger fear are legitimate concerns and should be worked in as issues. I like safety 3rd for thinking through these things.

One of the ugly long term issues of burning stuff is dumping the byproducts into the environment. How long does it take for them to break down? How hard is cleanup? How dangerous is it short term? Long term?

When you look at nuclear fission, the storage of the waste is hard to fathom how long it will be around and how long it will be a problem. The cost associated with this must not be overlooked and what our decisions mean to future generations as well. To me that's as ugly or worse than what oil and coal have done. Now maybe this spent fuel can be used in other ways but that's gambling until it's a viable path.
My reference for understanding this is that old medicine cabinets had a slot for used razor blades. You'd drop the razor blade in and it would fall into the wall like it fell into a black hole. Redo a really old bathroom that was used this way and you find a half a wall full of razor blades as you demo the wall that you have to carefully clean up. Out of mind, out of sight until you have to deal with it. This is something I think some of us are very slowly getting better at.

I really don't think micro reactors around is a good idea. Some hacker trying to make it work better and blowing up their neighborhood or some extremist doing something awful.
The worst case scenarios should also be considered for all of these options. Fission is last on my personal list, mostly because of the potential or easily overlooked / misunderstood / worst case issues.
 
Hillhater said:
….Of course I can't answer for Hillhater but you actually have a great point there with the costs….
I answered Chalo’s mistaken belief with the link to the iea table of actual costs….did you check it ?
The iea report Nuclear is actually one of the lowest cost generation technologies. !

It's not true. Sure, you can say X fuel cost plus Y labor cost plus Z facilities cost results in N energy production, and maybe it's competitive on that basis. (Which isn't obvious, by the way.) But there are so many ranks of unaccounted externalities for nuclear (and fossil) energy that you don't have to dig deep at all before you find they're way more expensive than even the most fanciful renewables. All the costs don't end up on producer balance sheets or utility bills, but we still pay for them.

Site contamination
Depression of property values/economic uses near facilities
Remediation of toxic brownfields, e.g. Hanford, Oak Ridge
Facilities security
Fuel security
Waste storage and security forever
Plant decommissioning
Political costs of nuclear weapons/rivalry
Military costs of nuclear weapons proliferation
Public loss of trust in government and institutions
Healthcare costs of illness from radionuclides
Human lifespan costs of illness from radionuclides

Some of these costs aren't even feasible to quantify, but they're still gigantically costly, inseparable corollaries of nuclear power that aren't reflected in direct expenditures or billing.

Don't misunderstand me to be saying that nukes are worse than, say, coal. But there's no reason to be messing around with either one at this point. They don't make economic sense except to the profiteers who assign the long term problems and associated expenses and harms to the public at large. These technologies are the power generation equivalent of single occupant private cars-- bad for everybody, including their individual users, but superficially convenient enough to fool people, and profitable enough to fund the widespread systematic fooling of people.
 
Chalo said:
…..Some of these costs aren't even feasible to quantify, but they're still gigantically costly, inseparable corollaries of nuclear power that aren't reflected in direct expenditures or billing.

Don't misunderstand me to be saying that nukes are worse than, say, coal. But there's no reason to be messing around with either one at this point. They don't make economic sense except to the profiteers who assign the long term problems and associated expenses and harms to the public at large.

I do not intend to get into a detail debate about the possible associated costs of either
Nuclear, Fossils, or renewables..real, imaginary, exaggerated, or otherwise.
All energy generation has its unwanted side effects, and all are a compromise of pro’s and con’s.
But the ultimate question is, do we want or need a reliable, affordable, available, energy (electricity) utility supply ?
Because that is what Coal, Fossils, Nuclear , etc has provided for the last 200 yrs, and has enabled the development of our current societies and economic structure. Renewables (wind & Solar) can never provide that basis of energy at any cost, and if pursued to any significant proportion of supply at the detriment of fossil generation, will create a energy crisis leading to social collapse. ..( which perhapse some may be wanting ?)
So yes, i would also like a world with less pollution, less wars, etc, but not at the cost of economic collapse and all that it would bring without a secure energy supply. Nuclear is the one established technology that could do both ( yes Nuclear technology has and can still prevent wars !) and future Nuclear tech can avoid many of your concerns also.
And dont loose track of what initiated all this move to renewables… the belief in the effects of anthropogenic CO2 on the global climate…an unscientific belief that will eventually be proven to be the fraud that it is.
 
Chalo said:
Site contamination
Depression of property values/economic uses near facilities
Remediation of toxic brownfields, e.g. Hanford, Oak Ridge
Facilities security
Fuel security
Waste storage and security forever
Plant decommissioning
Political costs of nuclear weapons/rivalry
Military costs of nuclear weapons proliferation
Public loss of trust in government and institutions
Healthcare costs of illness from radionuclides
Human lifespan costs of illness from radionuclides

I absolutely agree that externalities good and bad should flow into calculations of this scale much more. I also agree on your vies of individual transportation. In the pledge for rethinking nuclear I am actually already taking the negative externalities you mentioned into account and balanced them with drastically ramping up energy storage. In my view those are the only two options.

Renewables + Energy Storage + Nuclear (organically grown over this century with a phase out of nuclear)

Renewables + Energy Storage (drastic increase in storage will be relatively hard to pull of ... coming with it's own externalities that could outnumber the ones of nuclear)

The system we have today and one with more fossil fuels seems unacceptable and I do not rule out that you are closer to truth than I am but have you ever taken a closer look at newer nuclear models? On the other side I would be interested in gaining more of your understanding of the topic, can recommend some articles or studies that support your argument?

Hillhater said:
can never provide that basis of energy at any cost,

Nuclear technology has and can still prevents wars

And dont loose track of what initiated all this move to renewables… the belief in the effects of anthropogenic CO2 on the global climate…an unscientific belief that will eventually be proven to be the fraud that it is.

Why do you think that renewables can never provide a sufficient amount of electricity? Without storage I agree ... but with storage at some point his should work out fine.

Cool! How is it doing that? ...The prevention of wars.

Just to be on the same page here ... you don't believe that man made climate change exists? I believe know a little bit about the field. How comes you describe it as unscientific? Do you have some references for that?

Jrbe said:
To me that's as ugly or worse than what oil and coal have done. Now maybe this spent fuel can be used in other ways but that's gambling until it's a viable path.

...

I really don't think micro reactors around is a good idea. Some hacker trying to make it work better and blowing up their neighborhood or some extremist doing something awful.
The worst case scenarios should also be considered for all of these options. Fission is last on my personal list, mostly because of the potential or easily overlooked / misunderstood / worst case issues.

I agree on some points. However, my first intention is that you might underestimate the negative effects of fossil fuels.
- sharp increase of strokes, heartattacks, many more bc of pollution
- inefficient use of energy in general is increased
- burning coal btw releases more radioactive material directly into the air ... would chose living next to a nuclear reactor over a coal pp.

Small reactors really dont make too much sense for the reasons you mentioned nut also because it decreases efficiency in energy conversion.

Hillhater said:
….Of course I can't answer for Hillhater but you actually have a great point there with the costs….
I answered Chalo’s mistaken belief with the link to the iea table of actual costs….did you check it ?
The iea report Nuclear is actually one of the lowest cost generation technologies. !
Also , Thorium reactors were proven over 70 years ago, but were not promoted BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PRODUCE WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM . !
…nuclear bombs were considered to be a high priority at the time !
If Nuclear of any form, especially small modular units, are proven viable and cost effective, then there is no justification for wind or solar in utility gereration .But, Solar will always have a niche for off grid applications and limited demand remote communities.

I will check it out right now, thank you! I so far always believed that as long as cheap oil and gas are available (and no externalities are being taken into account) Oil will always be cheaper. (at least over the short run)
 
cto-endless-sphere said:
Jrbe said:
To me that's as ugly or worse than what oil and coal have done. Now maybe this spent fuel can be used in other ways but that's gambling until it's a viable path.

...

I really don't think micro reactors around is a good idea. Some hacker trying to make it work better and blowing up their neighborhood or some extremist doing something awful.
The worst case scenarios should also be considered for all of these options. Fission is last on my personal list, mostly because of the potential or easily overlooked / misunderstood / worst case issues.

I agree on some points. However, my first intention is that you might underestimate the negative effects of fossil fuels.
- sharp increase of strokes, heartattacks, many more bc of pollution
- inefficient use of energy in general is increased
- burning coal btw releases more radioactive material directly into the air ... would chose living next to a nuclear reactor over a coal pp.

Small reactors really dont make too much sense for the reasons you mentioned nut also because it decreases efficiency in energy conversion.

I'm aware of the ugly side of oil and gas. They are unfortunately the most portable and pourable currently and what most things are built around. I see getting the world off of oil would get some (to a lot) of the power away from some of the psychos running countries / starting wars.

Coal plants in my opinion shouldn't be a thing. Lots of ugliness with coal. They should be the first to go. Should nuclear take their place? I'd prefer that they didn't. It seems we have better options to me.

Inefficient use of energy will go up as it's perception of it being green goes up and costs come down. I don't see how this thought fits / says anything good about nuclear or most things in this discussion.

What's your take on storing spent nuclear fuel?
I really can't see past leaving this burden on future generations to deal with. This is what I mentioned as being worse than the dino-fuels.

If solar and wind are viable solutions for off grid / small scale why is it not a viable option for larger scale?
If you mean storage, batteries have come a long way and prices are down a lot. More storage options being developed as well.
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2022/1130/The-Florida-town-that-challenged-Hurricane-Ian-and-won#:~:text=Babcock%20Ranch%2C%20which%20calls%20itself,were%20destroyed%20in%20the%20storm.
 
My hope for nuclear energy is for the small modular reactor ( NuScale recently got regulatory approval for theirs here in the USA - which is an impressive feat considering the regulatory requirements ).

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...ale-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-2023-01-20/

A big advantage is that they can be mass produced and bring down the cost of nuclear power ( theoretically )
Their smaller size alone is a safety advantage because an explosion would affect a smaller area.
Supposedly they have some additional safety features that would prevent an explosion.

Also their size is intended as such that they're a drop-in replacement for smaller coal and natural gas power plants.
Seems promising so far.

Sure there's lots of other considerations but it may beat the current scenario of just using more fossil fuel.


Renewable energy is possible to make more economically feasible but the rate of progress is still quite slow on the generation end.
Currently there is kind of a "manhattan project" to reduce the cost and improve the durability of wind turbines, with some feasible improvements on the table.
But solar module advancements entering the real world are running at crawl currently.

The missing link for renewable energy is very cheap batteries to buffer the intermittent nature of renewables.
Sodium Ion might be the answer and the development rate of sodium ion batteries is at current, extremely rapid.

I see a tiny glimmer of hope.. that's about it!
 
cto-endless-sphere said:
Why do you think that renewables can never provide a sufficient amount of electricity? Without storage I agree ... but with storage at some point his should work out fine.
1) there are insufficient raw materials ( copper, steel, rare earths etc) ,.to build enough wind turbines transmission cables, batteries, txformers etc etc.
2) The scale of storage required to support a 100% RE grid is unviable, both physically and economically.
… How is it doing that? ...The prevention of wars…
You must have heard of M.A.D. ?….. it is still effective !

... you don't believe that man made climate change exists? I believe know a little bit about the field. How comes you describe it as unscientific? Do you have some references for that?.
There is no scientific PROOF that CO2 is the main driver, (or has any significant influence) on global temperatures.
……. Most of the evidence suggests no causal relationship
There is no scientific PROOF that Anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the increasing total CO2 in the atmosphere..
…..Since 98% of all CO2 on the planet is dissolved in the oceans, lt is more scientific to consider that increasing ocean temperatures would be responsible for the increase in CO2. (Henrys law)
 
"Humanity i love you because you
are perpetually putting the secret of
life in your pants and forgetting
it's there and sitting down

on it"

ee cummings
 
Hillhater said:
cto-endless-sphere said:
Why do you think that renewables can never provide a sufficient amount of electricity? Without storage I agree ... but with storage at some point his should work out fine.
1) there are insufficient raw materials ( copper, steel, rare earths etc) ,.to build enough wind turbines transmission cables, batteries, txformers etc etc.
2) The scale of storage required to support a 100% RE grid is unviable, both physically and economically.
… How is it doing that? ...The prevention of wars…
You must have heard of M.A.D. ?….. it is still effective !

... you don't believe that man made climate change exists? I believe know a little bit about the field. How comes you describe it as unscientific? Do you have some references for that?.
There is no scientific PROOF that CO2 is the main driver, (or has any significant influence) on global temperatures.
……. Most of the evidence suggests no causal relationship
There is no scientific PROOF that Anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the increasing total CO2 in the atmosphere..
…..Since 98% of all CO2 on the planet is dissolved in the oceans, lt is more scientific to consider that increasing ocean temperatures would be responsible for the increase in CO2. (Henrys law)

Can you post a source for the evidence you mentioned? I'm struggling to find it.

https://apnews.com/article/science-green-technology-climate-and-environment-renewable-energy-141761657a8e7a5627a0e49e601dd48e

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-ocean-absorbing-more-carbon
 
Jrbe said:
Hillhater said:
cto-endless-sphere said:
Why do you think that renewables can never provide a sufficient amount of electricity? Without storage I agree ... but with storage at some point his should work out fine.
1) there are insufficient raw materials ( copper, steel, rare earths etc) ,.to build enough wind turbines transmission cables, batteries, txformers etc etc.
2) The scale of storage required to support a 100% RE grid is unviable, both physically and economically.
… How is it doing that? ...The prevention of wars…
You must have heard of M.A.D. ?….. it is still effective !

... you don't believe that man made climate change exists? I believe know a little bit about the field. How comes you describe it as unscientific? Do you have some references for that?.
There is no scientific PROOF that CO2 is the main driver, (or has any significant influence) on global temperatures.
……. Most of the evidence suggests no causal relationship
There is no scientific PROOF that Anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the increasing total CO2 in the atmosphere..
…..Since 98% of all CO2 on the planet is dissolved in the oceans, lt is more scientific to consider that increasing ocean temperatures would be responsible for the increase in CO2. (Henrys law)

Can you post a source for the evidence you mentioned? I'm struggling to find it.

https://apnews.com/article/science-green-technology-climate-and-environment-renewable-energy-141761657a8e7a5627a0e49e601dd48e

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-ocean-absorbing-more-carbon
You won’t except in hillhaters imagination.
 
There is no scientific PROOF that CO2 is the main driver, (or has any significant influence) on global temperatures.
……. Most of the evidence suggests no causal relationship……
A casual review of the historic data for earths temperature and corresponding CO2 levels, ( ice cores etc) ..should make any rational thinker pause and consider what is being assumed currently.
 

Attachments

  • D7A0DD7A-8FA1-4668-A8E5-E84D66EDCEF5.jpeg
    D7A0DD7A-8FA1-4668-A8E5-E84D66EDCEF5.jpeg
    418.8 KB · Views: 79
Hillhater said:
There is no scientific PROOF that CO2 is the main driver, (or has any significant influence) on global temperatures.
……. Most of the evidence suggests no causal relationship……
A casual review of the historic data for earths temperature and corresponding CO2 levels, ( ice cores etc) ..should make any rational thinker pause and consider what is being assumed currently.


Thanks hillhater, but a graph isn't a source. Without a source and references the info in the graph could very easily be manipulated, cherry picked, and / or lots of graph fudge added to support any desired outcome.
When there are words added to the graph to tell you what to think about the graph it's not usually a good sign of the data shown or the source.

For contrast,
Screenshot_20230212_084048_Samsung Internet.jpg

From: https://scitechdaily.com/global-temperature-reconstruction-over-last-24000-years-show-todays-warming-unprecedented/
They get into how and why the proxy temp info isn't exactly reliable and what they did to look at all of the historical temp references to get what they considered to be accurate info.
The stretched out section looks like graph fudge but is the opposite. Without that stretch the temp looks like it almost goes straight up. Unfortunately it also distorts what the time of change looks like vs coming out of the last ice age.
They posted their code and references at the bottom of this next link.

The scitechdaily link shows an image from the work behind a pay wall: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03984-4 that's why I posted it this way.

I think we should let this topic get back on track. I'd be happy to continue this discussion in a separate post if you'd like.
 
The data reference is in the lower left corner,
Or,.
Caillon, N., etc, 2003.� Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III.� Science 299: 1728-1731.
If you want to. Join the extended discussion on all things AGW,..try here..
Or this..
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=89002
PS.. your graph doesnt give any correlation to CO2 ?
PPS.. on the reliability of sources,..
I would not trust any paper or “scientist” that states CO2 being dissolved will “acidify” the ocean !
That is a blatent scare tactic and a scientific lie which should cause hesitation as to the objective of the paper.
Oceans are alkaline and will never becom acidic.
And also ..this is an immediate disqualification from any unbiased, rational discussion or data analysis on Climate factors !
Tierney, who heads the lab in which this research was conducted, is also known for her contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
 
Back
Top